1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) receives KRW 154,400,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established for a reconstruction improvement project of the size of 52,476 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on December 12, 2008 from the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and authorization for the implementation of the project on April 16, 2013, respectively.

B. The Defendant owned and occupied the instant real estate located within the said rearrangement project zone, and consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association.

C. The Plaintiff received an application for parcelling-out from May 30, 2013 to July 28, 2013, and extended the period to August 11, 2013 (hereinafter “first application for parcelling-out”); and again, received an additional application for parcelling-out from April 29, 2014 to May 16, 2014 (hereinafter “second application for parcelling-out”).

However, the defendant did not file an application for parcelling-out during each of the above applications for parcelling-out.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association but fails to apply for parcelling-out, thereby losing the status of the Plaintiff’s member. As such, the Plaintiff seeks to implement and deliver ownership transfer registration procedures for the instant real estate based on sale and purchase conducted on August 12, 2013, the date following the date following the date of completion of the first application for parcelling-out, which is the date of completion of the second application for parcelling-out, by applying mutatis mutandis Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act, for sale and purchase as of August 12, 2013.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff lost its membership should be deemed to be “the time when the second application for parcelling-out is terminated,” which could have been maintained its membership. As such, the Plaintiff shall pay the price of the instant real estate calculated in accordance with the selection of appropriate comparative cases, including development gains, as of May 17, 2014.